I was reviewing some suggested edits when this came up. Someone proposed an edit of a fine question that didn't need any editing but had a typo in the title ('netwrok'). The edit only corrected the typo (but - let's assume - there was nothing else to edit). I skipped, but if everybody'd do that, nothing would happen.

For a typo in the title of a post though? I think this is something that just needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Correcting a few spelling mistakes in the body of a post seems trivial and too minor to be worthwhile; but the title of a post is how most people find content - ensuring they're spelled correctly (especially key words) increases the quality of content available to the community.
–
kyzenMay 1 '14 at 17:05

10

I feel like reject as too minor should count as an approval vote, but wouldn't give the editor reputation. Something to that effect would be really useful. That way, the editor isn't encouraged to continue making minor edits, but the typos still get fixed.
–
The Guy with The HatMay 6 '14 at 23:39

1

Honestly, if someone has the time to fix such a minor thing, you might as well let him have it.
–
Simon KuangJun 1 '14 at 5:20

I have on numerous occasions edited questions to fix the spelling in the title. For an "active" question having an accurate title is important. On the other hand, if you look at the editor's activity, and you see that he's done 30 other edits today, it's maybe time to put on the brakes.
–
Hot LicksJun 5 '14 at 1:35

2 Answers
2

Approve the edit. Spelling the words properly, particularly in the title, is a distinct improvement to the post. People may be searching for posts in this topic about a "network" and such a fine question would be easier to find without the typo.

When you encounter a minor edit in future, ask yourself the following questions:

Could the post have been improved further? If the editor left out other problems in the answer, reject it right away. All edits should improve the post substantially. If correcting a minor typo was the only thing that was done in the edit, then it's not much useful.

Does this minor edit improve the post greatly? In some cases, a minor typo could change the entire meaning of the post. If you think the edit does help, but there were still more to fix, just click on "Improve" and fix the rest of the problems yourself. Don't forget to tick the "This edit was helpful" checkbox when you submit the edit.

When you approve an edit that fixes a minor problem but fails to fix the other 10, that encourages the editor to continue making more edits like that. They get awarded +2 rep and will think it's fine to make such edits. Some might even go on a crusade looking for typos in posts and mass edit them all.

If the suggested edit fixed a typo in the question's title, then I'd say that's a good edit. Wouldn't it help other users who are searching for "framework" to find this question. Sure, it does. There isn't a strict rule to follow; each suggested edit should be approved/rejected based on its context.

What's wrong with specifically focusing on a typo-free website? If the person only knows enough to fix the spelling, or even just cares enough to take the time to objectively make the site better, why is it a problem?
–
TankorSmashJun 28 '14 at 19:07